MataVatnik@lemmy.world to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 2 年前Anon questions our energy sectorslrpnk.netexternal-linkmessage-square380linkfedilinkarrow-up11.16Karrow-down1189
arrow-up1970arrow-down1external-linkAnon questions our energy sectorslrpnk.netMataVatnik@lemmy.world to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 2 年前message-square380linkfedilink
minus-squareMataVatnik@lemmy.worldOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up19arrow-down2·2 年前Look up deaths per kWHr of different energy sources and come back to me
minus-squareWoodScientist@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up15arrow-down3·2 年前It has that low death rate precisely because it is heavily regulated. The typical nuclear booster argument works on the following circular logic: “Nuclear is perfectly safe.” “But that’s not the problem with nuclear. The problem with nuclear is its too expensive.” “Nuclear is expensive because it’s overly regulated!” “But nuclear is only safe because of those heavy regulations!” “We would have everything powered by nuclear by now if it weren’t for Greenpeace.”
minus-squareSaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down5·2 年前This exactly. But they keep shilling nuclear power regardless. Super silly tribalism.
minus-squarezero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down2·2 年前That’s not my point and I’m already aware.
Look up deaths per kWHr of different energy sources and come back to me
It has that low death rate precisely because it is heavily regulated.
The typical nuclear booster argument works on the following circular logic:
“Nuclear is perfectly safe.”
“But that’s not the problem with nuclear. The problem with nuclear is its too expensive.”
“Nuclear is expensive because it’s overly regulated!”
“But nuclear is only safe because of those heavy regulations!”
“We would have everything powered by nuclear by now if it weren’t for Greenpeace.”
This exactly. But they keep shilling nuclear power regardless. Super silly tribalism.
That’s not my point and I’m already aware.